Delhi Court March 1981 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Abhay Kumar Yadav Vs. K. Srinivasan and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-24-1981
Reported in: AIR1981Delhi381; ILR1981Delhi661; 1981RLR354
S.B. Wad, J. (1) Petitioner was suspended from the rolls of the three-year Diploma Course in Pusa Polytechnic Institute, by the order of the Principal on 16'-10-80. By the me order, he was prohibited from entering the premises of the Polytechnic. He was also directed to vacate the hostel room occupied by him. This was a temporary order. It was to be in force till the criminal case against him was decided. In this Writ Petition., the petitioner has challenged this order. The petitioner (along with two other students), was involved in a stabbing incident in the Polytechnic on 15-11-1979. One Shri Ved parkash Pippal, a student of first year was stabbed. A criminal case u/s 307 I-P.C. is pending against these students. The Disciplinary Committee of the Institute, after due enquiry, had recommended expulsion of these students but the Principal did not impose the extreme penalty. (2) The Director of Technical Education, Delhi Administration, has framed rules regarding conduct, discipline and...
Amal Mal Sindhi Vs. Ram Parkash
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-24-1981
Reported in: 20(1981)DLT22; 1981(2)DRJ153; ILR1982Delhi861
Sultan Singh, J. (1) This second appeal under Section 39 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter called 'the Act') is directed against the judgment and order dated 12/1/1979 of the Rent Control Tribunal passing the order of eviction under section 14(l)(e) of the Act. Mr. Rajiv Behl has raised a preliminary objection that this second appeal is barred by time. (2) Section 39 of the Act prescribes a period of 60 days for the filing of an appeal in this court from the date of the order of the Tribunal. Order 41 Rule I of the Code of Civil Procedure requires that the memorandum of appeal shall be accompanied by a copy of the impugned order. Needless to say that the copy of the order must be a certified copy. Rule 2(b)of Chapter I-A of the Rules and Orders of the Punjab High Court Vol. V, which are applicable to this court, requires the filing of a copy of the judgment of the court of first instance along with a copy of the order of the first appellate court. The appellant filed the...
Legal Representatives of the Estate of Late R. Dalmia Vs. Commissioner ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-24-1981
Reported in: (1981)24CTR(Del)16
D. K. Kapur, J. - The Income-tax Reference under consideration is concerned with the yr. 1961-62 for which the relevant previous year was the year ending 30-9-1960. Although a number of questions have been referred to us, basically most of the questions relate to the compulsory acquisition of the Lahore Electric Supply Co. Ltd., which took place before the partition of the country. These questions are related to the interpretation of s. 2(6A) of the Indian IT Act, 1922, because the basic question for determination is whether a loan of Rs. 45 lacs taken from M/s. South Asia Industries Pvt. Ltd., by the assessed can be deemed to be a dividend for the purpose of computing the income of the assessed. This question forms the subject-matter of the first six questions referred to us. The remaining questions are concerned with the disallowance of certain interest income and the inclusion of some income arising in favor of the wives of the assessed in his total income u/s 16(3) of the Act.2. Be...
R Dalmia (Decd.) (Through Executors and L. Rs.) Vs. Commissioner of In ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-24-1981
Reported in: (1982)24CTR(Del)16; [1982]133ITR169(Delhi)
D. K. KAPUR, J. - The income-tax reference under consideration is concerned with the assessment year 1961-62 for which the relevant previous year was the year ending 30th September, 1960. Although a number of questions have been referred to us, basically most of the questions relate to the compulsory acquisition of the Lahore Electric Supply Co. Ltd., which took place before the partition of the country. These questions are related to the interpretation of s. 2 (6A) of the Indian I. T. Act, 1922, because the basic question for determination is whether a loan taken from M/s. South Asia Industries (P.) Ltd., by the assessed can be deemed to be a dividend for the purpose of computing the income of the assessed. This question forms the subject-matter of the first six questions referred to us. The remaining questions are concerned with the disallowance of certain interest income and the inclusion of some income arising in favor of the wives of the assessed in his total income under s. 16 (3...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi (Central) Vs. Dalmia Cement (Bharat) ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-23-1981
Reported in: [1982]137ITR681(Delhi)
Ranganathan, J. 1. I.T.R. Nos. 149 to 142 of 1974 raise certain common questions of law arising out of the assessments of M/s Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Ltd., New Delhi, for the assessments years 1959-60, 1960-61, 1961-62 and 1962-63. The common question involved relate to the withdrawal of interest paid to the assessed under s. 18A(5) of the Indian I.T. Act, 1922/s. 214 of the I.T. Act, 1961, consequent on the fact that the original assessments for these years were modified on appeal by the AAC and the Appellate Tribunal. I.T.R. No. 109 of 1975 also pertains to the assessment year 1961-62 and the question raised therein relates to a further withdrawal of such interest on grounds similar to those in which interest had been with drawn at a certain earlier stage which is being challenged in I.T.R. NO. 141 of 1974. It will be convenient to deal with all the references together as the point raised for decision is ultimately the same. 2. The assessed is a public limited company doing business i...
Ram Kali Devi and ors. Vs. Ramesh Chander and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-23-1981
Reported in: AIR1982Delhi14; 20(1981)DLT40; 1981RLR330
ORDER 43(1) An appeal shall lie from the following orders under .the provisions of Section 104, namely:- (a) ..................................... (k) an order under rule 9 of Order Xxii refusing to set aside the abatement or dismissal of a suit.' Learned counsel for the respondents submits that mere reading of this clause shows that an appeal lies only from an order refusing to set aside the abatement of a suit and not from an order refusing to set aside the abatement of appeal. Learned counsel for the appellant however submits that the word 'suit' in clause (k) includes an appeal. Counsel for the appellants in support of this submission relies upon Hari Saran Singh and others v. Syed Md. Eradat Hussain, 1925 Pat 162, Mir Wajid Ali v. Puspo Mandal and others, : AIR1938Pat125 , Raju Muduli v. Chinnaraju Naidv and others, Air 1941 Mad 51, Ganpat Bapuji v. Shri Maruti Doosthan, Tandulwadi, Air 1952 Nag 181 and Alphonao Nazareth v. XavierDias and others, Air 1971 Kar 79. In these authorit...
Addl. Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi-ii Vs. R.D. Ram Nath and Co.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-21-1981
Reported in: (1982)28CTR(Del)110; [1983]141ITR897(Delhi)
Ranganathan, J. 1. After hearing both the counsel we have come to the conclusion that the question referred to us is purely academic and having regard to the findings to the Tribunal, any answer given by us to that question will have no impact on the income-tax assessment in question. We have, thereforee, come to the conclusion that we should decline to answer the reference. 2. Briefly stated the facts are that the assessed, R. D. Ram Nath & Co., was a firm engaged in the business of export of brassware and handicrafts. The accounting year with which we are concerned is the period from April 1, 1964, to November 10, 1964. Some time during this accounting year (the exact date is not available), it appears that the market rate of zinc, which the assessed was entitled to import under a license available to it, was Rs. 2 to Rs 2.10 per kg. At that time the assessed entered into a forward contract of sale with two Moradabad parties, M/s. Hansraj Dharam Pal Jain and M/s. Standard Metal indus...
Rajeshwar Pershad Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax (Central), New Delhi
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-21-1981
Reported in: [1982]138ITR771(Delhi)
Ranganathan, J.1. The assessed in both (sic) these income-tax references is an HUF. It originally consisted of Lala Sharan Bihari Lal and his son, Rajeshwar Pershad. Smt. Yeshwant Kumari is the wife of Rajeshwar Pershad and at the relevant time they had a son. It is stated that Lal Sharan Bihari Lal and Smt. Yeshwant Kumari had got separated from the joint family. But this aspect of the matter is not relevant and we can proceed on the footing that the joint family consisted of Rajeshwar Pershad, his wife and his son. The question which arises in these references is as to whether a sum of Rs. 9,000 received by Rajeshwar Pershad from a private limited company known as Vijay Shri P. Ltd. should be treated as his individual income or whether it was rightly included by the ITO in the assessments of the family which is the present assessed. The assessment years in question are 1970-71 and 1971-72, for which the relevant previous years are the financial years 1969-70 and 1970-71, respectively...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi Vs. Nav Bharat Nirman (P.) Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-20-1981
Reported in: [1983]141ITR723(Delhi)
Ranganathan, J. 1. Though there are four references, all of them arise out of the assessment of M/s. Nav Bharat Nirman (P.) Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'the assessed') for the assessment year 1962-63. There was one appeal before the Tribunal by the assessed. After it was disposed of, both the assessed and the Department applied to the Tribunal for referring certain questions to this court. The Tribunal referred two questions pertaining to an amount of Rs. 2,00,000 out of which the ITO had disallowed Rs. 40,000. This constitutes the subject-matter of I.T. Rs. Nos. 1 and 2/74. There was another issue pertaining to a sum of Rs. 1,00,000 which had been decided by the Tribunal against the assessed. But the assessed's request to have a question referred in regard to that issue having been declined, the assessed came to this court in I.T.C. No. 29/74 and this court directed a reference. This is how I.T. Rs. Nos. 38 and 39/79 are before us. Actually since there was only one appeal before ...
ParvIn SarIn Vs. Manbir Singh,
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-20-1981
Reported in: 20(1981)DLT61; 1981RLR468
Sultan Singh, J.(1) This second appeal under section 39 of the Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter called 'the Act') filed by Parvin Sarin, tenant, is directed against the judgment and order dated 4th September, 1980 of the Rent Control Tribunal confirming the judgment and order dated 23rd January, 1979 of the Additional Controller passing an order of eviction against the appellant. Respondents I and 2 filed an eviction petition against the appellant being tenant and Ravinder Sarin, Respondent No. 3 the alleged Subtenant on the grounds mentioned in clauses (a), (b) and (e) of the proviso to sub-Section (1) of Section 14 of the Act. The ground under clause (b) has been negatived by the Additional Controller and the Rent Control Tribunal and is no more in dispute before me. As regards non-payment of rent under clause (a) of the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the Act, it has been held by the Controller and the Tribunal that the valid notice was served, that the tenant neither...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »